Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Shows the location details regarding the data gathering in Delhi.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

The general architecture of the proposed model of regression.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Density plot of PM2.5 for multi station.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

The mean normalized air quality data across multiple stations.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

A Spearman’s ranking correlation coefficient represents the Mean correlation between PM2.5 and atmospheric components, for multi-stations.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 2.

Spearman’s rank means correlation coefficient between PM2.5 and Climatic Parameter across multiple stations.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 5.

Comparison of original and wavelet-transformed features across six monitoring stations.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Principal component analysis (PCA) of air quality data across six monitoring stations.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Radar chart of feature importance.

The significance of seven factors for forecasting PM₂.₅ at six Delhi stations. Lines further from the center imply more importance.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Table 3.

The section that follows the pseudo-code for the hybridized AOAOA technique.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 8.

The sequence diagram illustrates the implementation of the hybrid AOAOA approach.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Generic network architecture of the LSTM.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Air quality forecast is based on the Bi-LSTM framework.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Table 4.

Model’s architecture, compilation, training, and evaluation metrics.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 11.

Graphical representation of MSE measures of several epochs of AquaWave –BiLSTM.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Graphical representation: actual vs. predicted PM2.5 for multiple stations.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Visual representation of R² score and MSE comparison across stations with and without feature extraction.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

Multi-station performance comparison of feature selection methods for air quality prediction: AOAOA vs. competing algorithms.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Table 5.

Analysis of several machines and deep learning algorithms for multi-station air quality datasets.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Top-ranked SHAP feature (Rank 1) at each station, its PCA component, and the three most significant meteorological and pollutant factors influencing PM2.5 prediction. PM₁₀ emerged as the primary predictor across stations, with RH, AT, AP, and WS also making substantial contributions.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 15.

SHAP summary plots of the top 10 features contributing to PM2.5 prediction at each station: (a) AshokVihar, (b) DCStadium, (c) DwarkaSec8, (d) Najafgarh, (e) NehruNagar, and (f)Okhla.

More »

Fig 15 Expand

Table 7.

Station-wise MSE comparison across proposed and baseline methods.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Fig 16.

Comparison of average mean squared error (MSE) across feature extraction and selection methods for multiple stations.

More »

Fig 16 Expand